I’m pretty sure this is meant to be ironic. Hey, it’s contemporary art, isn’t it? This work is on the side of the Central City Canada Line station (though I can’t find it listed in the Canada Line Art Program).
.
.
The wording, I think, works both ways: In order to perceive your surroundings, the act of perception requires that you be involved in some way. It’s the difference between looking and seeing.
And it works in reverse: an issue like the bike lanes (had to mention that, didn’t I?) can change the environment (in this case a valued green space) which people perceive intimately and emotionally. They’re then motivated to take action. Involvement, in other words, first requires perception.
When decision-makers try to involve people before a change is made, they may get little or no reaction, and hence no indication of the blowback to come – because there’s been no change in perception. Until something occurs that alters the status quo, no amount of well-intentioned consultation will be effective. There’s nothing to grab people’s interest or even make them aware a change is being considered, or that the approval was based on a policy to which their was no opposition.
Hence the warning. Those responsible for making or managing change may not see that their actions or approvals can shift people’s perception in ways that unleash the forces of involvement in a distinctly negative way. In our world of social media, that can literally happen overnight.
So, then, reaction. People feel they weren’t ‘consulted’ because they had no sense of awareness; they didn’t know what was coming. Nor would they until something happens that shifts their perception – which then makes them think the change had been pre-determined.
And that makes them angry.
